The Passion

“I make myself laugh. Everytime I post on one of these threads, it is the death of the thread. I need to learn to explain my spiritual feelings in 50 words or less.”

“I'm glad this conversation has taken the turn it has.

newgirl - you rule, no matter when you post!

Here's a question fer y'all:

IF Christ comes back ("risen"), how would we know in todays world? I mean, there's a bunch of peeps out there (crazy or not) claiming to be Christ anyways, what's not to say that they aren't, or under "divine influance" (or influance of anything else LOL!) or what not. Would there be a "siganture" or something to let peeps know it's time to Get Down?”

“When (if for Non-Christians) Christ comes back, it will (would) be big. He won't be reborn and grow as a man among us, he will descend from heaven. (See Rev. chp.19 ver.11-21)”

“StormBringer and Mutt, are interested in actually coming to any (logical) conclusions

I haven't read all this thread, but this strikes me as being the least apt judgement on my oeuvre. If anything, logic is an indispensable unit of my analysis - although non-linear perception certainly has an important place in my perspective. But thanks for playing.”

“The fighters made some low and slow passes over the clearly marked U.S. flag ship. They returned fifteen minutes later and
started to strafe the deck with
20mm cannon fire. The Liberty called out signal after signal of
origin and distress. The planes
now dropped napalm,hoping to flame
personnel through the sieve they
made of the deck. The Liberty started to abandon ship. Gunboats
arrived and started to machine gun
the survivors until chased away by
U.S. Navy planes.
If Mel Gibson made a movie about
the Isreali attack on the U.S.Navy
would that be anti-Semitic?”

“Briar and Newgirl!

Those were good posts. I wonder how that poll defined the various groups. Some people don't consider Catholics "Christians." Some Catholics self-identify as Catholic if given the choice between Catholic and Christian.

I read a neat little interpretation in the paper today. The Biblical writers were all believed to have been ethnically Jewish. So, when there are passages blaming "the Jews", it is kind of an internal accusation. "The Jews" could actually mean "all of us" or "all humans." In that sense it wasn't an accusation against a different group. That would take the anti-Semitism argument out. I'm not sure what I think of that yet.”

“That the Bible blames the Jews as a people for killing Christ, comes from the perspective of those reading. I never got that idea when I read the Bible. Like anything else if you're looking for that you'll find it. From my perspective reading the Bible, I see individuals who happened to be Jewish who were complicit in Jesus' death. From my own personal point of view I can't understand how anyone could say that the Bible at any point casts blame on Jews as a people.”

“Thank you for proving my point for me. Argumentum ad logicam comes to mind. Your whole focus is on pointing out flaws in formal debate procedure, rather than discussing the issues at hand. No big deal, this thread bores me”

“I don't study the Bible and haven't even read most of it, but I am a Christian and fairly confident in my faith - that's all said simply for context here.

Didn't the Jewish religion issue some sort of "apology" (bad term but I don't know of a better one) to the Pope a few years back to try and end the animosity between the two religions over the crucifiction argument?”

“The big question is,What brand of cross trainers will he wear in the movie?”

“"Didn't the Jewish religion issue some sort of "apology" (bad term but I don't know of a better one) to the Pope a few years back to try and end the animosity between the two religions over the crucifiction argument?"

It was the other way around. The Pope made an apology to the Jews.”

“Wow, this thread made lots of progress over the weekend. The mudslinging is over and logical, respectufl discussion has found it's way to over hear. Yeah!”

“A popular Catholic item makeing the rounds is wearing a cross made
of nails.”

“Yeah, they are giving out nails and crowns of thorn as a promo item.

I saw one discussion on a “MessyAntic” board where people were afraid that if this movie goes big and does well there could be a negative backlash because Hollywood will try and cash in on the established christian audience and there would be a whole slew of bad christian movies out there. Hollywood representing Christians is not exactly their cup of tea I guess.”

“If Golan-Globus made a movie about
Catholic kid touchers would that
be anti-Catholic or just bad taste!”

““The Biblical writers were all believed to have been ethnically Jewish. So, when there are passages blaming "the Jews", it is kind of an internal accusation. "The Jews" could actually mean "all of us" or "all humans." In that sense it wasn't an accusation against a different group. That would take the anti-Semitism argument out.”

Let me preface this post by saying I absolutely hate the “________ card”, be it the race card, the religious card, or the socio-economic card. Being a strong believer in Judaism I’ll be the first to say that the anti-Semitism card is thrown out there WAY too much. Any little thing said bad about Jews and there is a hew and cry. There is a time for it but if you truly do follow a Great and Mighty G-d then the Jews should show gratitude, pull themselves up by the boot straps (or Zitzit LOL!) and MOVE ON!

That being said the NT doesn’t lay blame as a collective on everyone as a whole. There are very specific passages that lay the blame at the feet of the Jews as well as the Jewish courts of the Sanhedrin. And there are some reliability issues with these claims I’ll point out later.

John 5:16
John 5:18
John 7:1
Acts 9:23
Acts 10:39
John 8:44
Acts 2:23
Act 3:13
Act 3:14
Act 3:15
Act 4:10
Acts 5:30
1 Thessalonians 2:

There seems to be a clear separation between “them” and the Jews. There can’t be a collective guilt as not all Jews killed him. Were it a collective guilt they would have “we”and “us”. The only Jews who could legally kill him were the Sanhedrin, and herein lies the problem. At the time under Roman rule the Jewish courts of the Sanhedrin could not level a punishment of death. There were so many false messiahs at the time that the Sanhedrin relinquished authority because they did not want to be known as a bloody court. The death penalty was only used in extreme cases of un repented breaking of the law and the Talmud says that if two people were executed in a 7 year span that it was considered to be a “bloody court”. Plus under Roman rule they only had religious authority.

It is said that by the Jews demanding Barrabis in stead of Jesus to be set free on the Passover that they assume guilt. This also presents a problem because this custom called Privilegium Paschale is not a Jewish custom nor a Roman one. There is no historical documentation supporting it. It isn’t found in Judaism and we can hardly assume the Romans would make such concessions for a Jewish holiday. Pilot is always shown to be the worry wart who was ringing his hands at having to kill Jesus but in fact he had no love of the Jews and killed Jews left and right, sometimes as many as 500 a day. What’s one more? He was so bloody that Rome recalled him for getting out of hand.

Also let me say that this means in no way that Christianity or Christians hate the Jews or seeks to push anti-Semitism because most churches have made proclamations against it, especially the RCC. The RCC is one the best friends to the Jews out of all the christian churches.

Just food for thought and I admit to not being the world’s best cook.”

“One question that comes to mind is that I've heard you say that the Jews were not looking for a Messiah and that the prophesies that Christians point to aren't really saying what our interpretation is. At least that's my recollection from some other threads. If I'm remembering correctly, the above makes me wonder one thing, why all the fake messiahs if there wasn't supposed to be a Messiah? I may be misinterpretting previous posts, if so I apologize.”

“I think Andy Rooney said it best last night,,, how much money does Mel expect to make off the crucifixion of Christ,,,, or something along those lines.”

“"One question that comes to mind is that I've heard you say that the Jews were not looking for a Messiah and that the prophesies that Christians point to aren't really saying what our interpretation is.”

The coming of the Messiah is one of the 13 basis for faith in Judaism. Every generation has the potential for the coming. It’s just a matter of conditions and time. It’s mainly that the Jews are waiting for someone who will do very specific things and fulfill certain requirements. It’s just that the coming of a Messiah is an afterthought, not the focus.”

“I'm a Recovering Catholic. I haven't had a drop in 24yrs. The roughest times are when I have to go to weddings; I start hissing and convulsing.”

“I misunderstood a while back then. I was thinking at one time you had said something to the effect that the Jews weren't really looking for one. Is this an accurate summary? Christians teach that Jews didn't recognize Jesus because he came in a way and manner that they didn't expect. He came like a dove instead of a lion. Jewish thought counters that Jesus isn't consistent with the parameters prophesied. He was not a military leader,...etc. Another point is that it'll be great when the Messiah comes, but the Jewish people aren't hanging on that event. Is that about right from both viewpoints?”

“I was thinking at one time you had said something to the effect that the Jews weren't really looking for one. Is this an accurate summary?

What I probably said was that the Jews expect the Messiah but they don’t spend time focusing on it. Now some movements are concerned with it more than some. The Chassidics believe that when all Jews light the Shabbat candles and say the blessing together the world is ready. This is why you’ll see the MIBs (men in black) handing out candles on Reform Jewish campuses on Thursdays encouraging everyone to light the candles and say their blessings.

“Christians teach that Jews didn't recognize Jesus because he came in a way and manner that they didn't expect. He came like a dove instead of a lion.”

Yes and no. The Messiah will be a leader but not just a military leader.

“Jewish thought counters that Jesus isn't consistent with the parameters prophesied. He was not a military leader,...etc.”

Yes, that’s the contention. The military leader thing is not even a big deal really.

“Another point is that it'll be great when the Messiah comes, but the Jewish people aren't hanging on that event.”

True.”

“Military leader was the only criteria I could remember off the top of my head. Didn't mean to imply that was the only one. Sorry about that. The dove/lion thing was meant to convey passive verus aggressive.

I just finished the CS Lewis book. I really enjoyed it and several things really hit home. I liked the way his examples worked to convey difficult topics. I'll have to reread parts of that book for it to really hit home.”

“What if Jesus has come back many times, already? What if he was one of the war protestors marching against the war in Iraq?”

“Then I'll bet the tear gas pissed him off pretty bad.”

“I saw this on a thread at a messyantic site and I just can't believe how people are going after Mel. They are attacking him, his father, and it can't be long before they go after his kids. For all the crap he's taking it's funny how no one has even SEEN the movie yet.

http://www.levitt.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=006725

One thing I found striking is this part of the article...

"Some Jewish leaders say the movie could fuel anti-Semitism for its portrayal of Jews' role in the crucifixion, while conservative Christians have praised it as a moving depiction of Christ's death."

I think the story is going to over shadow everything else and any anti-semetism wouldn't even be noticed. These people need to give it a rest. While his father doesn't seem to have a full grasp of history that doesn't mean Mel is the same. Hell, I've heard my dad use the term porch monkey before, doesn't mean I have the same views.”

“I listened to an interview w/ Mel on a Christian radio station today. Me? I'm down w/ Mel. He's extremely intelligent, he speaks well, he is very clear about his own (seperate from his father and others) views and holds to them, and he's brave. It is unfashionable to be a Christian, right now. In the U.S. it is particularly unfashionable to be an old-school Catholic, nonetheless, Mel is sticking to his guns. I admire him. I'm very excited for the film. I hope that he is rewarded for his faithfulness to the Lord's calling on his life w/ a huge box office turn-out. I mean, Geez, God hasn't asked much of me and I'm still rarely good at following through.

Also, Mel has said it tons of times and Christians recognize it as truth: we all crucified Christ. There's no anti-semitism to argue about here. He paid the price for all sin, of all humankind, for all time. I know that for a tiny moment He experienced the weight of my crap choices. I'm not walking around feeling like an evil jerk though . . . mostly I feel incredibly grateful. So a certain bunch of Jewish guys and freaky Roman dude were the vehicle God picked to get the ball rolling . . . as if that's the dumb detail any of us should focus on. The ball rolled all the way to the Creator's massive love letter to the world. I think that is what He hoped we'd pay attention to!”

“Still not 50 words or less, but I definitely said what I feel! LOL! Right on Girlfriend!”

“newgirl, you ROCK!

Hollywood representing Christians is not exactly their cup of tea I guess.

Nigal, the funny thing is that Hollywood wouldn't touch this flick. Not only couldn't Mel get any financial backing from the Hollywood establishmen, he couldn't get a mainline distributor either. Mel pretty much financed this movie personally, and had it distributed through an independent company and was told Mel had to pretty much market it on his own. I don't think Mel is doing this for the $$, he's doing it for the "passion". If the movie does well financially, I doubt you'd be seeing big-budget Christian-oriented productions from the Hollywood elite. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The Last Temptation sure didn't do very well. I don't think DreamWork's animation "Prince Of Egypt" did so well either. Just my thoughts, who knows what will come of all of this. I think it will be very positive and I'm excited about it.”

“I think Andy Rooney said it best last night,,, how much money does Mel expect to make off the crucifixion of Christ.

I don't see how it could be thought of in these terms. Mel is doing this out of his own personal convictions, without the backing of Hollywood. Mel doesn't need no steenkin' money, he could make a Lethal Weapon 5 and make $15 mil right here, right now. Mel is sharing an important part of his life and an important part of history (THE most important hours of history, IMHO), and trying to make a film that depicts the final hours of Christ as accurately as the Gospels tell it. Mel went into this virtually alone with no Hollywood $$ or Hollywood backing, and everyone in Hollywood thought/thinks he's crazy. Mel doesn't care, it's his passion. Mel isn't trying to make money off Jesus, he's trying to spread the Good News. Do publishers of the Bible publish the Bible just to make $$? No, it's their passion, but they make $$ so they can keep printing more and more. At least I think so, your mileage may vary. Personally, I don't think a lot of these critics of this movie like to see Christ making headlines.”

“Sorry for all these posts, I just now got a chance to get back and review this thread!

That being said the NT doesn’t lay blame as a collective on everyone as a whole. There are very specific passages that lay the blame at the feet of the Jews as well as the Jewish courts of the Sanhedrin.

Hi Nigal! I think so many people miss the point, and the entire message of the Bible. The Jews were God's "chosen" people to bring forth the Messiah. God chose the Jews not because they were superior or anything, but to show the world that God will love us even though we turn our backs on Him over and over (as the Jews did), and God wanted to show His love for the entire world through the Jews. The religous "Laws" were instituted to show that man is imperfect and unable to keep the laws, so an innocent sacrifice had to be made to atone for these sins. This all pointed to the future, where Christ would be the ultimate and final sacrifice, and we are no longer condemned by the Law that was impossible to keep, but we are now saved through faith through the grace of God. God knew this from day one in the Garden. The seed of woman would bring forth a Deliverer for our sins and crush Satan, the serpent. The Jews were given this unique role to show the world the love of God and to bring us this deliverer for all mankind. The Jews can't "kill" Christ, no one call kill Christ, unless Christ purposely set out to die. Christ came here for the explicit purpose to die on the cross and be our sacrafice. The Jews would be out of the will of God if they didn't crucify Christ for themselves and the rest of the world, and hence the Jews had no choice but to fulfill the will of God.

Christ talked often about giving up His own life.

"even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father and I lay down My life for the sheep.
I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
For this reason I lay down My life so that I may take it again."
No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.". - John 10:15-18

Here Christ is clearly saying only He is responsible for His death, and the reason is to be the Shepherd for both the Jews AND Gentiles, the whole world.

I truly don't get how people, if they really understand the whole story, can think that Jews killed Christ?”

“that budda dood was really fat...not that there's anything wrong with that..”

“They are on little papyrus fragments. Over the years, they have been eaten away by mice and warped by the elements. They are now in pieces. Researchers over the years have pieced them together enough to be able to translate MOST of the text. - reformed lurker

Hi reformed lurker! Sorry, I missed this earlier (as I have missed lots of stuff), but I'd like to address this. I'm not sure how familiar you are with textual criticism and the various source texts for the Bible. We don't have the original autographs of the Bible. This is probably a good thing, since people tend to "worship" things like that and lose perspective, like worshiping creation and not the Creator. Also, it's a good thing we don't have the original autographs because if there was just "one" source for all the documents, it could easily be tampered with and then all resulting copies would reflect this. So, what we have today are many ancient Biblibcal texts in the original languages, the original "copies" you might say. These ancient Biblical texts are found in various parts of the world, copied in various formats. In fact, there are over 3,500 partial and complete manuscript portions that were copied by hand ranging from the second through the fifteenth centuries. So we have many ancient Biblical texts, ranging over many centuries, from various places all over the ancient world, to compare with each other for any transmitted errors. The accuracy of the New Testament is one of the most proven and tested of any ancient book ever written. There are literally thousands of source documents to compare. Most people do not realize this fact. So if one papyrus version in Alexandria was "eaten way by mice" or something, it has no bearing on all the thousands of other manuscripts, ranging from the Byzantine Empire and many other cities and empires all through various ages. Which is why I still firmly believe in the "inspiration" of the Bible we have today.”

“How can you tell if it's the Holy Spirit, or God? Is there really that big of a difference? - laqtis

Hi laqtis! Traditional orthodox Christianity says God = Trinity (Father/Son/Holy Spirit). So the Holy Spirit is in essence God.”

“In Catholicism the collected personal revelations are called tradition. What do Protestants do with this valuable personal revelation? - reformed lurker

Hi reformed lurker! I'm a Protestant, but I feel Catholics are Christian brothers and sisters just the same. As you know, Catholics have two pillars of revelation, the written Word, and church tradition. Protestants pretty much rely exclusively on the written Word, but we don't necessarily doubt tradition. The Protestant perspective is that the written Word is "complete" and is the ultimate authority. Mankind has a corrupt nature, the Word has a perfect nature. When mankind gets in the way, there is chance of corruption, hence Protestants typically have little heirarchy and structure (compared to the Catholic liturgy) and emphasize the earnest study of the Bible and a direct personal relationship with God. No "man" (Pope, priests, traditions) should come between you and God. It's a very decentralized approach. Protestants don't discard tradition and the "living church" for sources of revelation, but we feel the revelation is already complete in the Word and any other revelation is for inspiration only and must be tested against Biblical doctrine. Which is why, for instance, Protestants don't believe in the assumption of Mary, or that Mary was born without original sin, and pergatory, etc., because these concepts are not found written in the Bible, but are thought to be true merely through "tradition", and in the minds of many Protestants they are even contrary to Biblical teaching. But to me, this is majoring in minors because even though there are differences, the similarities are great and the general concept of needing Christ for redemption is the same. I dated a Catholic gal for a couple years and we'd trade off between going to Mass and Church. Currently I'm in a non-denominational Bible-believe church. Well, not right this very second, I'm actually in my room typing on my computer, but you know what I mean.

Why would God only leave the Bible, essentially abandoning the world?

Well, as you know, God did not abandon the world, as He sent us the Holy Spirit. Also Christ lives in us as well, so we are guided by the Spirit as we learn from the complete Word. And we are in constant contact through prayer. At least that's how I see it.”

“I'm all alone in here, just playing catch up on this thread, don't mind me folks! I won't be in tomorrow, so I'm trying to respond tonight, thanks!

Buck, one thing that will get you a heck of a lot further than absolutist statements is intellectual integrity. Being able to understand and say things that go against the flow of the group you’re in. Saying something like, “The bible is the absolute perfect word of G-d and is perfect.” does nothing but put people on the defensive.

Nigal, I appreciate your comments, but I'm not claiming to be intellectual, nor am I telling others how to believe or trying to convince them of anything, but I am sharing what I have found and know to be true. I make absolutist statements because I absolutely believe in God. No doubt, no room for stuttering. It would be like saying, "don't make absolutist statements about your parents". Well, I know who my mom and dad are, and I know who God is, just the same! That's just how it is. I'm not trying to put people on the defensive, nor the offensive, I'm just sharing my faith as others are sharing theirs. I quote the Bible, I make no apologies for the Bible. I absolutely believe in the Bible, and I believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. I come to different conclusions than you do about "errors", but I have studied Textual Criticism and how we have our sacred documents, and I respect the fact you feel otherwise, no worries, and I literally believe the Bible when it says:

"For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." - Hebrews 4:12

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" - 2 Timothy 3:16

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." - John 1:1,2

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14”

“Does errors in the Hebrew scriptures change anything for me? Heck no. I don’t use the “perfect word” defense to try to prove G-d’s existence. It is a creation, not a living breathing thing.

Again, Nigal, the Bible needs no "defense" so I am not trying to "defend" the Bible nor "prove" God. In fact, God designed things to be based on "faith", because if God could be "proved", then would that really be a free-will choice? Jesus made reference to those who saw His miracles and believed, so how much greater it will be for those who do not see such first-hand miracles yet still believe, by faith. If we said, "God, if you exist, prove it by striking lightning before me and spell my name out on the ground", and He did it, would such overwhelming evidence really be a choice? God wants people to "choose" Him, to follow Him by choice, through faith, not by force or by such overwhelming evidence that there wouldn't be a choice in the first place.

And you say the Bible is not a "living breathing thing". I defer again to the Bible, and I'd rather heed the words of God than man, when the Bible says otherwise, "For the word of God is living and active". I believe the Bible is indeed a living document.”

“Okay, I think I'm all caught up now, except one comment earlier by Mutt saying there are many paths to God. I would ask again, if there are many paths to God, why would Christ suffer and die in such a brutal fashion, and also why would God make so many conflicting paths to Him, knowing the various conflicting religions (paths) to Him would cause such great destruction and turmoil? As the Bible says, there is only one path, although the great deceiver, Satan, tries to create other paths to lead men astray and bring destruction in the process. These are my beliefs based on the Bible, I'm not trying to brainwash anyone, feel free to come to different conclusions. Okay, I'm done for now, bye!”

“You've said everything pretty much just as I would but much more eloquently.

That church marquee is the best running bit on TT.”

“except one comment earlier by Mutt saying there are many paths to God.

Never said any such thing. I said there is more than one path, though; that much is obvious.

I would ask again, if there are many paths to God, why would Christ suffer and die in such a brutal fashion,

I already answered that: to present another path to God. Evidently the dumbass nomadic middle eastern tribes needed a brutal sacrifice to open their eyes. At any rate, how should I know? I consider Christianity to be 99% myth anyway. How would anyone know the mind of God?

and also why would God make so many conflicting paths to Him,

Why do you think they conflict? The particulars of Western religion aren't important and can be dismissed as a necessary fulfillment of human desire to explain the unexplainable. However, the core aspects of the religion are similar to many other religions - Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Moreover, how would you know they actually conflict unless you know the totality of God? We all know human perception is incredibly fluid - for example people perceiving the same event in seemingly profoundly incompatible ways. What makes you think the particulars of your religion invalidate all other religions? Do you know for a fact that God didn't tell you Christianity is the only religion to comfort you, all the while showing Herself to the world through different religions? Unless you can claim to know the totality of God, you cannot claim to know christianity is the only true religion. That's a simple matter of logic.

knowing the various conflicting religions (paths) to Him would cause such great destruction and turmoil?

What doesn't cause great destruction and turmoil? Anyway, even if christianity was the only religion, history vividly illustrates the despicable magnitude of violence christians generate amongst each other.”

“Religion isn't about logic, it's about faith. From a Christian perspective the Bible is the Word of God. If as a Christian you have faith in that, you believe that Christ is the one true path. Human logic has nothing to do with it, religion isn't a science.

In essence a Christian is not claiming to know the totality of God, but is claiming to know God's path for man as it applies to achieving the Kingdom of Heaven, as it is laid out in the Bible.”

“Very well said bison”

“Right, I forgot that God told Christians not to think for themselves. Thanks Bison for reminding me.

Really, the claim of exclusivity is is a logical problem rather than a matter of faith. If the bible told you the sky was green, and you went outside and observed it's blue, would you ignore your god-given sensibilities and have faith the bible is right?”

“That's not even close to what he's saying.”

“No Mutt your exactly wrong. God specifically (from a Christian POV) wants all people to think for themselves (See Bucks posts above).

Your analogy doesn't follow. There is concrete proof of any other path for me to look at and reject. Any path to Heaven, including the idea of multiple paths must be taken on faith.”

“dayhiker, that's because (s)he's eliding my point.”

“"isn't concrete proof"”

“You're on this thread for one of two reasons. 1.) You have a curiosity about this issue. If so read 'Mere' Christianity by CS Lewis. Lewis is a former aetheist. This book is partly written like a theological proof. I just finished it and it addressed some issues I had. 2.) You're here to mess with the poor idiots who beleive in something bigger than themselves. If that's the case I really don't have anything to say or add. As Arky said, I'm not arguing the un winnable argument. The nearest example I can think of is the movie, "Contact."”

“"dayhiker, that's because (s)he's eliding my point."
Mutt
09:00:58 AM
02/24/04


Mutt - I am indeed a Bull.”